httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] CGI: script command line and win32
Date Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:45:11 GMT
Paul Sutton wrote:
> 
> I don't think a vote without a code test should be counted as a valid
> vote. Whenever I vote on a patch it has been tested on both Unix and
> (usually) Win32 and works as described. It also means I've had a look at
> the code and don't think it'll impact other functionality. All of this
> takes time (especially getting it onto Win32 and testing it) so my votes
> tend to be later than others. Of course it would be much easier for me to
> +1 the patches based on whether I think the feature is good or whether I
> think the bug in question deserves to be fixed, but that isn't the way
> that the review process should work.
> 

This is all how I operate, other are most like different.

A +1 from me means that I've looked at the code, implemented the
code, compiled it and make sure it runs. If there is an easy way
to see if it fixes the bug, I do that test. If it's a bug
that doesn't affect me, then I make sure the patch doesn't turn
my servers into smouldering hunks of silicon.

a +1 (untested) means that I have looked through the code and
given it an approval just on a "code reading level" I may or
may not have applied the patch or compiled, but I have definately
not run a server with it applied. I approve the code, but with
the condition that it might need further work.

+1 should, of course, go towards the quota.
+1 (untested) is more hazy... I feel that it's OK for it
to be used as such (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered voting)
but I'm covering-my-ass :)

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message